Append content to a file in your vault, creating it if missing, and preserve the change in version history.
Agrega contenido al final de un archivo del vault (lo crea si no existe). Queda en el historial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the file is created if missing and that the action is recorded in history ('Queda en el historial'). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like overwriting, permission requirements, or error behavior, and it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is atomic or reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key exception (creating if missing). No wasted words; the history note is a useful extra. The structure is ideal for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks details on return values (despite having an output schema), path syntax, and how it differs from write_file. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It refers to 'content' but doesn't clarify what format is expected or how 'path' should be specified (relative/absolute). The description adds minimal value beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Agrega' (adds) and the resource 'archivo del vault' (vault file), and includes the key behavior of creating the file if it doesn't exist. It's specific enough to distinguish from read_file or delete_file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with write_file or str_replace_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings like write_file (overwrites) or str_replace_file (replaces). The description implies appending as a distinct operation but never states when it's appropriate or preferable, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.